sobo Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 *DISCLAIMER* I am not asking for legal advice. I'm just looking for a citation. In my line of work (engineering), I cannot legally sign and stamp designs, documents, etc. that pertain to aspects of engineering for which I am not licensed nor educated/experienced. For instance, as a licensed and registered professional civil engineer in WA, I can author, sign, and stamp designs, plans & specs, technical memos and documents, etc. that pertain to most any aspect of municipal engineering (roads, streets, highways; water supply systems, booster pump stations, pipelines; sewage collection systems, lift stations, pipelines; irrigation pipelines, pump stations, intake structures; etc.). However, it is illegal for me to do the same with such branches of engineering as structural (bridges, occupied buildings, etc.), surveying, electrical, mechanical, nuclear, etc. So the question is this... Is there a similar citation in RCW that prohibits an attorney that specializes in, say, med mal (suing doctors and hospitals), from practicing in family law (divorce/parenting plan issues), unless said attorney is licensed/educated/experienced in the field of family law? If so, what is that citation? TIA. This wasn't much help... Neither was this... Nor this... Quote
Dan_Miller Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 My best understanding is that the only 'true' legal specialties are Tax (generally requires a JD and an LLM in Taxation) and Patent (generally requires a JD and an undergraduate degree in some form of engineering). The state of Wyoming is the only one I am aware of that doesn't recognize any legal specialities. In Washington State attorneys are specialists if they hold themselves out as such in the various practice areas. Thus Caveat Emptor. Perhaps a PM to Matt Perkins, Ballard attorney may reveal more. I'm a little too lazy to pour through the RCW's and a whole multitude of Administrative Regulations to give you an ironclad definitive answer. But I bet I'm fairly accurate in my statements above. Hope some of this is of benefit. Quote
sobo Posted December 20, 2011 Author Posted December 20, 2011 Perhaps a PM to Matt PerkinsDid that yesterday morning after posting here the night before. He still hasn't read it as of this writing. I'm a little too lazy to pour through the RCW's and a whole multitude of Administrative Regulations to give you an ironclad definitive answer. But I bet I'm fairly accurate in my statements above.No worries, Dan! I didn't find much meseff searching the RCW (as you can see in my post above), which is why I went here and then to PM. Figgerd some barrister out there more versed in the ways of the law than I would be able to assist more directly. Quote
Bronco Posted December 20, 2011 Posted December 20, 2011 I would venture a guess that the attorney is risking consequences from the WSBA and a malpractice lawsuit if they've shown negligence or incompetence in representing a client. I use attorneys a fair amount in business and that the only standard I'm aware of. It does beg the question, why would someone use an attorney who's not qualified for a certain area of law? The client may have some responsibility here to investigate the specialty of their legal representative. It’s usually important stuff they are doing for you. Quote
mattp Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 You're getting good information here as far as I can tell, Sobo. Sorry not to answer your message earlier but I have been too busy with work and life to check cc.com and find your private message yesterday and today. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.